Hi Guys, How can i open port 21? I'm using Windows 2008 R2 I need to open this for FTP. Thank you.

disable the firewall, or install Web services/FTP service, or make an incoming and outgoing rule in the firewall. The first two and probably the easiest depending on your need.

FTP is already installed.. but when i portqry here is the result ... querying... TCP port 21 (ftp service): NOT LISTENING

disable the firewall

im done disabling the firewall but im still getting TCP port 21 (ftp service): NOT LISTENING do i need to reboot the server?

yes, reboot

Hi Guys, How can i open port 21 ? I'm using Windows 2008 R2 I need to open this for FTP. First of all DO NOT DISABLE THE FIREWALL ! Then, start by ensuring that your FTP service is running and listening; to do so, fire up a command prompt (as admin) on the server console and enter the following commands netstat -aon|find "LISTEN" >ports.txt notepad ports.txt then, check the contents of the file "ports.txt" and ensure that port 21/TCP is in the list, if that isn't the case then your FTP service isn't running or either it isn't listening on port 21 so you'll need to re-check your FTP server config Once the FTP server will be running and port 21/tcp will be shown as "LISTENING", you may go on creating the appropriate firewall rule, to do so, open the "server manager" expand the "configuration" node, then the "firewall" node and select "inbound rules" Now, click "new rule" in the rightmost "actions" panel select the "port" option and click "next", select "TCP" and "specific local port" and enter 21 as the port number click "next" and select "allow the connection", then click next again Tick all the scopes and click next once more enter a name for the rule like (e.g.) "FTP server (control)" and a description and click "finish" to complete the rule creation That's all, now, from another machine try opening an FTP session toward the FTP server, to do so, move to the console of another machine, fire up a command prompt and, at the prompt enter the following commands ftp your_server_name_or_ip username password pwd dir quit by the way, replace "your_server..." with your FTP server hostname or IP address and "username" and "password" with valid user and password to access your FTP server; if all is working you should then log on and be able to see the directory listing of your FTP server, if that isn't the case... post back here Notes: 1. You don't need to open port 20/tcp, it's NOT needed for inbound connections (details here) 2. You may need to configure a passive port range both in the FTP server and the firewall to allow PASV mode clients (e.g. IE) to work [edit] notice that this forum is related to windows server security; your request is "off topic" for the forum so, I'm kindly asking the forum admins to move this whole discussion to a more appropriate forum.

disable the firewall I don't think this is good advice; especially considering that this forum is related to windows server security; disabling the firewall will just expose the server to unneeded risks and sincerely it's not a SOLUTION to the issue

Thanks a lot ObiWan, i get this in port.txt TCP 0.0.0.0:21 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 3132 however i'm still encountering issue C:\Windows\system32>ftp 10.0.2.1 Connected to 10.0.2.1 Connection closed by remote host.

Thanks a lot ObiWan, i get this in port.txt TCP 0.0.0.0:21 0.0.0.0:0 LISTENING 3132 Well, judging from the above it sounds like something is listening on port 21 now... we'll need to see WHAT is listening there, to do so, with the "ports.txt" infos in your hand, fire up your task manager and check which process has the "PID" (process ID) number 3132 and ensure it's your IIS FTP service, if that isn't the case... report it here however i'm still encountering issue C:\Windows\system32>ftp 10.0.2.1 Connected to 10.0.2.1 Connection closed by remote host. could you please try the same directly from your FTP server console and entering ftp 127.0.0.1 to see if it works ? Also, did you create the firewall rule ? If so, please run the following commands (from an "elevated" cmd prompt) netsh advfirewall firewall show rule name=all >rules.txt notepad rules.txt and post here the contents of the "rules.txt" file (to do so, open a reply, then hit the "code" button and paste the "rules.txt" contents in the "code window" which will popup)

disable the firewall I don't think this is good advice; especially considering that this forum is related to windows server security; disabling the firewall will just expose the server to unneeded risks and sincerely it's not a SOLUTION to the issue ObiWan, I never said this was a solution, nor did i imply this. I was simply keeping this troubleshooting and explaination to a minimum. I can clearly tell from this the previous posts what skill level i am dealing with. Thus, disabling the firewall for TESTING to verify what is causing the issue is the EASIEST solution. I never said to keep it off, nor did i say i would not have them turn it back on. But i didn't feel the need to explain that at midnite, when i was helping this person. You are welcome to complete what i have already started for this user since you are clearly the master here. Clearly you know more and can jump to more conclusions about things, and your opinion must be the correct one. Good luck Obi Wan.

You are welcome to complete what i have already started for this user since you are clearly the master here. Clearly you know more and can jump to more conclusions about things, and your opinion must be the correct one. Good luck Obi Wan. Gunner ... didn't expect such a kind of reaction from you, also since you're a "community contributor" and sincerely, I was surprised from your suggestion; lowering the "protection level" of whatever box w/o knowing if/how it's protected isn't a good idea; that box may just be directly connected to the internet and disabling the firewall may expose it to security issues. Also, I don't think we're here to try "fighting" each other or demonstrating who's "the best", I suppose that the whole idea behind these forums is to help people troubleshooting issues and possibly solving them, so, if you want to give up with this issue, up to you, but trying to shift the whole issue on a personal basis isn't so "mature" in my opinion nor it will help "jwill92" then, again, up to you.

ObiWan, You can stop with the act, you clearly ment to insult me, with your pervious comments, and i simply called you on that insult. Your use of underlining, and capitalization was clearly ment to drive home a point. I simply rebutted you poor decision do to such a thing. So you can get off the "i've have no idea what you are refering to attitude." You know what you did, and the fact that you can't say I'm Sorry. Tells me even more. Your last post comes off as an appology without actually saying the words. Instead, you simply try to imply; your shocked at my response; i think so highly of you, etc. etc. Clearly, you think so highly of me, as not to appologize, and instead simply insult me more, by calling me or my actions inmature. Taking the high road paved on other people backs, itsn't much of a high road to me. I see your actions for what they are. I'm not here to fight with you, personally i don't know you, but from what i can tell i don't want to. Never address me again in any forum or thread.

ObiWan, Hi there ! You can stop with the act, you clearly ment to insult me, with your pervious comments, and i simply called you on that insult. Never meant it, just wanted to ensure that the OP didn't follow the suggestion of disabling the firewall so exposing the system, nothing more attitude." You know what you did, and the fact that_you can't say_I'm Sorry. Tells me even more. If you want that, then... yes, I'm sorry you took it this way and sincerely I still believe you're overreacting Your last post comes off as an appology without actually saying the words. Instead, you simply try to imply; your shocked at my response; i think so highly of you, etc. etc. Clearly, you think so Man, I do really think you got it totally wrong and on a personal level, up to you, didn't apologize, since I don't think there's need to (never meant to give offense, I wrote it and - NO I'm NOT apologizing now) also, I'm not going to follow you in a flame if this is what you're trying to start; this isn't the right place for such stuff and, worse, won't help the OP Never address me again in any forum or thread. Oh, this says it all

JWill99 Other than NOT Disabling the Firewall which I agree is not a good solution. And the other great suggestions by OBIWAN. I don't know if this has been asked? (Sorry a lot of Flamming going on.) Can you get a FTP Response "INSIDE" your WAN? If you are using the Server FTP Service Is the FTP Service Running? (This is not meant to be an insult just trying to cover the bases) On a side note: Personally I've found Microsoft's FTP not as good as Simple Free FileZilla FTP Server. http://filezilla-project.org/download.php?type=server You can do nested Folders, FTP to Other Network Shares, and you don't need to give the person an AD Account (This IMO is a must if you have a "Guest" FTP Account) In addition what ever FTP you are allowing to this server please make sure the "SERVER" has Anti Virus on it. (Since you are unsure of the client side it's always good to cover the bases.) Russ Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, SBSC Remote Small Business Server/Computer Support - www.SBITS.Biz Redirect to Microsoft's SBS Public Forum - www.SBSrepair.com Redirect to Microsoft's SBS Esssentials Support - www.SBSErepair.com

Hi ObiWan - I checked what is listening in port 3132 and i found this... svchost.exe 3132 SYSTEM 00 Host Process for Windows Services ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I also getting this C:\Windows\system32>ftp 127.0.0.1 Connected to 127.0.0.1 Connection closed by remote host. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, i already created firewall rule.. this is what i did Rule Name: FTP Server (port 21) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enabled: Yes Direction: In Profiles: Domain,Private,Public Grouping: LocalIP: Any RemoteIP: Any Protocol: TCP LocalPort: 21 RemotePort: Any Edge traversal: No Action: Allow

Guys, My apologies for all the trouble it brought to you.. i just need somebody to help me out here.. Thank you in advance.

Can you get a FTP Response "INSIDE" your WAN? Don't know how to do this? :( If you are using the Server FTP Service Is the FTP Service Running? Yes.. FTP Service is running. If i can post the screenshot here i will. Thanks Russ

From a PC in side your network Can you type in a dos prompt Ftp SERVERName And get a login? Russ Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, SBSC Remote Small Business Server/Computer Support - http://www.SBITS.Biz Redirect to Microsoft's SBS Public Forum - http://www.SBSrepair.com Redirect to Microsoft's SBS Essentials Help Links - http://www.SBSErepair.com

i dont get a login .. i got this error C:\Windows\system32>ftp 10.0.2.1 Connected to 10.0.2.1 Connection closed by remote host.

Hi ObiWan - I checked what is listening in port 3132 and i found this... svchost.exe 3132 SYSTEM 00 Host Process for Windows Services ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I also getting this C:\Windows\system32>ftp 127.0.0.1 Connected to 127.0.0.1 Connection closed by remote host. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, i already created firewall rule.. this is what i did Rule Name: FTP Server (port 21) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enabled: Yes Direction: In Profiles: Domain,Private,Public Grouping: LocalIP: Any RemoteIP: Any Protocol: TCP LocalPort: 21 RemotePort: Any Edge traversal: No Action: Allow Ok, sounds like the firewall rule is in place, so connections to port 21/tcp should be allowed; to ensure that this is the case and that the firewall isn't "acting" :) do the following * Fire up the server manager * Expand the "firewall" node * Click the "firewall properties" in the central pane * For each profile: ** Click the "customize" button in "logging" ** Select both "log dropped.." and "log successful.." ** confirm with Ok * repeat for next profile (domain, private, public) * Click Ok to confirm all changes Fire up a command prompt and enter the following commands net stop ftpsvc net start ftpsvc now, try again to run "ftp 127.0.0.1" running it from the SERVER itself (cmd prompt); done that, go back to the server admin .. firewall, click on monitoring and click on the firewall logfile name; check the log to see if a connection to port 21/tcp was ALLOWED by the firewall (as it should) If the above will be ok (connection allowed by the firewall), the issue is probably caused by the IIS FTP server settings since, looking at the test "ftp sessions" you ran till now, it sounds like the FTP is accepting the connection just to drop it immediately; this may be due to some restrictions set in the FTP configuration; if this is the case we'll probably need further details related to the FTP config or either we may move the issue to a new discussion on the IIS forum (but before anything else, ensure to check the firewall log as for the above instructions)

I don't know if this has been asked? (Sorry a lot of Flamming going on.) Can you get a FTP Response "INSIDE" your WAN? Oh... let aside the attempt of flaming, adds nothing to the discussion :) as for the FTP check, yes, he tried to both connect from the LAN or even from the machine itself (127.0.0.1) but it sounds like the FTP is accepting the connection and immediately dropping it; so we'll now need to ensure the firewall is allowing the traffic (and it should) and then to check the IIS FTP config If you are using the Server FTP Service Is the FTP Service Running? (This is not meant to be an insult just trying to cover the bases) Asked him (see my other message) to issue a stop/start, that way we'll ensure the IIS FTP service is running :) On a side note: Personally I've found Microsoft's FTP not as good as Simple Free FileZilla FTP Server. http://filezilla-project.org/download.php?type=server You can do nested Folders, FTP to Other Network Shares, and you don't need to give the person an AD Account (This IMO is a must if you have a "Guest" FTP Account) Seconded, although the choice also depends from what you need to do (e.g. if you need AD integration); FileZilla server is my usual choice when it comes to public FTP sites, but... for the moment let's remain focused on IIS FTP :D In addition what ever FTP you are allowing to this server please make sure the "SERVER" has Anti Virus on it. (Since you are unsure of the client side it's always good to cover the bases.) Good advice for sure... now let's wait for some further infos from "Jwill"

thanks ObiWan, your response was easy to understand for someone like me new to this set up... this is what i saw in the firewall log.. 2011-07-13 16:48:28 ALLOW TCP 10.22.12.21 10.21.18.77 55398 32843 0 - 0 0 0 - - - SEND2011-07-13 16:48:28 ALLOW TCP 10.22.12.21 10.21.18.77 55399 32843 0 - 0 0 0 - - - SEND2011-07-13 16:48:59 ALLOW UDP 10.22.12.31 10.21.12.255 138 138 0 - - - - - - - RECEIVE2011-07-13 16:49:28 ALLOW TCP 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 55400 21 0 - 0 0 0 - - - SEND2011-07-13 16:49:28 ALLOW TCP 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 55400 21 0 - 0 0 0 - - - RECEIVE2011-07-13 16:50:01 ALLOW UDP fe80::7989:88aa:5631:58fd ff02::1:2 546 547 0 - - - - - - - SEND2011-07-13 16:50:17 ALLOW UDP fe80::7989:88aa:5631:58fd ff02::1:2 546 547 0 - - - - - - - SEND2011-07-13 16:50:21 ALLOW UDP 10.22.12.21 10.21.12.255.164 59235 389 0 - - - - - - - SEND2011-07-13 16:50:21 ALLOW UDP 10.22.12.21 10.21.12.255.164 59236 389 0 - - - - - - - SEND

Forgot, as for the IIS FTP, please have a look here and ensure you correctly created your FTP site, if that isn't the case you may just delete the site and re-create it; ensure to avoid checking/entering a "virtual host name" and use the same settings shown at the above URL (that is, allow anonymous, READ ONLY) leave aside (for the moment) all the user isolation and the other stuff, just focus on the FTP site creation, done that, proceed with the instructions at my previous message

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:11:37 +0000, Gunner999 wrote: You can stop with the act, you clearly ment to insult me, with your pervious comments, and i simply called you on that insult.? Your use of underlining, and capitalization was clearly ment to drive home a point.? I simply rebutted you poor decision do to such a thing.?? So you can get off the "i've have no idea what you are refering to attitude."? You know what you did, and the fact that_you can't say_I'm Sorry.? Tells me even more. Enough with the bickering please. Gunner999, IMO, you are the one at fault here. 1. Your OP, to which ObiWan responded gave no indication whatsoever that your suggestion to disable the firewall was only meant as a troubleshooting step. How do you expect someone to be able figure out your intentions from a 3 word post? Neither of your posts indicate that you were suggesting disabling the firewall as a troubleshooting step. 2. ObiWan was clearly, again IMO, using emphasis to let the OP know that disabling the firewall was not a good security practice. His use of emphasis was not directed towards you, nor was it meant to be insulting or otherwise demeaning in any way. Quite frankly, had I come across either of your two posts of 7/12 before ObiWan had responded, I would have responded pretty much exactly the same way. None of us who frequent these forums are mind readers, and trying to glean someone's intentions from a few words in a forum post usually ends up badly for all parties involved. Paul Adare MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager http://www.identit.ca My girlfriend always laughs during sex - no matter what she's reading. - Steve Jobs (Founder: Apple Computers)

thanks ObiWan, your response was easy to understand for someone like me new to this set up... You're welcome and... one step at a time, no hurry and let's try avoiding pitfalls 2011-07-13 16:49:28 ALLOW TCP 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 55400 21 0 - 0 0 0 - - - SEND 2011-07-13 16:49:28 ALLOW TCP 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 55400 21 0 - 0 0 0 - - - RECEIVE now, the above tells us that the firewall ALLOWED the incoming connection, so the "drop connection" issue you're experiencing isn't due to the firewall filtering the port, this leaves us with the IIS FTP config; try following the instructions in my other message and ensure to setup a basic, vanilla FTP site and let's see if that way we'll solve the issue

Great ObiWan i have this result i recreated the FTP site using the link you provided.. C:\Windows\system32>ftp 127.0.0.1 Connected to 127.0.0.1. 220 Microsoft FTP Service User (127.0.0.1:(none)): anonymous 331 Anonymous access allowed, send identity (e-mail name) as password. Password: 230 User logged in. ftp> i have question though, can i also use the server IP or the web app IP? so i can ftp like this.. ftp 10.0.0.2 ..? Thank you.

Great ObiWan i have this result Uh "great" now I'm blushing - come on :D i recreated the FTP site using the link you provided.. C:\Windows\system32>ftp 127.0.0.1 Connected to 127.0.0.1. 220 Microsoft FTP Service User (127.0.0.1:(none)): anonymous 331 Anonymous access allowed, send identity (e-mail name) as password. Password: 230 User logged in. ftp> Hooray :) So, it sounds like the issue was caused by some misconfiguration of the FTP site as I wrote, one step at a time ... and avoid pitfalls :D i have question though, can i also use the server IP or the web app IP? so i can ftp like this.. ftp 10.0.0.2 ..? Yes, it's possible, although such a thing is outside the purpose of this forum which is dedicated to the windows server security; to proceed with further setup for your IIS FTP, please start a new discussion on the IIS forum; at any rate, before considering the "FTP connection issue" solved, please, try running an ftp 10.0.0.2 from another machine and ensure that the FTP will still allow the connection and the logon Thanks

Thanks ObiWan you're the One :D ®©™½¼

Thanks ObiWan you're the One :D You're welcome; as for the FTP IP address, in the instructions you saw, the example was showing 127.0.0.1, now, if you want to let the FTP server to listen on "all" the IP addresses for the given box (including 127.. and 10...) you may just select "any" from the dropdown box; also notice that enabling anonymous access may be ok for a start, but you'll probably need to take some further steps and configure authenticated (and write) access, for such a task, I suggest you to open a new discussion on the IIS forum HTH

Paul, I appolgize if this come off a little snotty, but clearly you missed forums edicate 101. So let me enlighten you. The post below is a flame. It is equivalent to standing 2 feet from my face and yelling. Everyone knows this. CAPTIALIZATION = YELLING, underlying simply added to the flame. Only adding to the problem the insinuations ObiWan clearly does in many of his posts. insinuation = An unpleasant hint or suggestion of something bad. I don't think this is good advice; especially considering that this forum is related to windows server security; disabling the firewall will just expose the server to unneeded risks and sincerely it's not a SOLUTION to the issue My technical rebuttal was this. I never said this was a solution, nor did i imply this. I was simply keeping this troubleshooting and explaination to a minimum. I can clearly tell from this the previous posts what skill level i am dealing with. Thus, disabling the firewall for TESTING to verify what is causing the issue is the EASIEST solution. I never said to keep it off, nor did i say i would not have them turn it back on. But i didn't feel the need to explain that at midnite, when i was helping this person. Any reasonable person would have, realized their previous post was a mistake, clearly based on flawed assumption on their part. But appreantly reasonableness isn't being applied here. My mistake was the sentences after this technical response. They were not appropriate, but clearly i was ticked off to say the least. As to your point #2, While you can certainly assert that ObiWan's post was not directed to the OP, if so he could have clearly maked it that way, but i believe it was direct to me. So no i don't believe your opinion here is correct, it is clearly based on flawed thinking. Or at a minimum it helps you see why i was ticked off, by applying your same "were not mind readers" belief of point #1. ObiWan should have been been more clear, i should have been more clear, but at the end of the day, none of this matters. The fact that obiwan was given a chance to take responsiblity and clearly just piled on tells me everything about that person. Mostly i don't want anything to do with him.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:10:47 +0000, Gunner999 wrote: Paul, I appolgize if this come off a little snotty, but clearly you missed forums edicate 101.??So let?me enlighten you.? The post below is a flame.? It is equivalent to standing 2 feet from my face and yelling.? Everyone knows this.? CAPTIALIZATION = YELLING, underlying simply added to the flame.? Only adding to the problem?the insinuations ObiWan clearly does in many of his posts.? insinuation = An unpleasant hint or suggestion of something bad. I have been participating in online forums and Usenet news groups since before the World Wide Web even existed and I can assure you that I do not need any lessons from you in "forums etiquette". A single capitalized word in a post is not shouting, and in this case was clearly meant for emphasis. As for whether or not ObiWan's post was a flame, it most definitely is not, and if you think that was a flame, you clearly haven't spent much time online. As to whether or not his post was an insinuation or not, given what you'd posted, his post was definitely not an insinuation, it was simply a statement of fact given what you'd posted. Your post was "disable the firewall" and mentioned nothing at all about that being simply for troubleshooting purposes. On its face value, with no further evidence that you meant it to be only a troubleshooting step, it is quite simply put, horrible advice and ObiWan did nothing wrong with pointing out that fact. Note that he did not attack you personally, he merely expressed his opinion on the 3 little words you posted and he was correct. If you meant it to be simply for troubleshooting then surely you could have preceded the 3 words for did post with two additional ones, regardless of the time of day you posted. Had you simply added "For troubleshooting" to the beginning of that post, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. I don't think this is good advice; especially considering that this forum is related to windows server security; disabling the firewall will just expose the server to unneeded risks and sincerely_it's not a SOLUTION_ to the issue My technical rebuttal was this. I?never said this was a solution, nor did i imply this.? I was simply keeping this troubleshooting and explaination to a minimum.? I can clearly tell from this the previous posts what skill level i am dealing with.? Thus, disabling the firewall for TESTING to verify what is causing the issue is the?EASIEST solution.? I never said to keep it off, nor did i say i would not have them turn it back on.? But i didn't feel the need to explain that at midnite, when i was helping this person. As above, had you mentioned this in your original post, or your second post, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. You didn't post the above until your third post. Any reasonable person would have, realized their previous post was a mistake, clearly based on flawed assumption on their part.? But appreantly reasonableness isn't being applied here.? My mistake was?the sentences after this technical response.? They were not appropriate, but clearly i was ticked off to say the least. You had no reason to be ticked off, and if you were, then the correct response would have been to mark the post as abuse, provide your reason and let the forum moderators deal with the issue. As to your point #2, While you can certainly assert that ObiWan's post?was not directed to the OP,?if so?he could have?clearly maked it that way, but i believe it?was direct to me.? So no i don't believe your opinion here is correct, it is clearly based on flawed thinking.? Or at a minimum it helps you see why i was ticked off, by applying your same "were not mind readers" belief of point? #1.? ObiWan should have been been more clear, i should have been more clear, but at the end of the day, none of this matters. At the end of the day, you've completely misread ObiWan's post and you've completely overreacted. ObiWan definitely makes a lot of valuable contributions here and to ignore his posts because you seemingly can't tell the difference between someone taking exception to something you posted at a technical level versus attacking you personally is really your issue, not his. I'm done with this discussion as you've clearly made your mind up about this issue (and apparently have an ongoing issue with ObiWan that predates this thread). If, in the future you think you've been flamed or publicly attacked then mark the post in question as abuse, provide your reason and let the forum moderators deal with it. If you respond as you did to ObiWan's post in this thread again, I'll contact the forum moderators myself, personally, and report you. There was no call to claim abuse in the first place, and even less to clutter up this forum with your rant. Paul Adare MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager http://www.identit.ca GIGO: A movie industry acronym referring to the numerous "Gidget Goes..." movies, i.e. GIGO Hawaii, GIGO surfing, etc.

I have been participating in online forums and Usenet news groups since before the World Wide Web even existed and I can assure you that I do not need any lessons from you in "forums etiquette". Paul, I felt the need to jump into this branch of the discussion since I felt the urge to thank you for your kind words and since I need to confirm that, what you wrote is totally correct; as I wrote I never meant to start a flame or whatever, when I posted those messages my main concern was that the OP, following the directions would disable the firewall, so exposing his system to security risks, hence the use of capitalized words, I'm sorry that "gunner" took it on a personal basis since that wasn't my intention at all, but it sounds like he was the only one reading things "upside-down", and sincerely I don't know why. At any rate, I think that there's no need to go on with such a discussion, the OP solved his issue and this adds zero to the contents (and btw the fact that the issue was solved speaks by itself), so, again, thanks a lot, but... let's drop it, want you :) ?

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:39:13 +0000, ObiWan wrote: let's drop it, want you :) ? From the post of mine to which you responded: ============= I'm done with this discussion as you've clearly made your mind up about this issue (and apparently have an ongoing issue with ObiWan that predates this thread). ============= Paul Adare MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager http://www.identit.ca You can't make a program without broken egos.

let's drop it, want you :) ? From the post of mine to which you responded: Fine :)

Paul, I respectfully disagree with your last rant. I could continue this by forming a rebuttal, but personally i am tired of the i said this, i think they meant this, you should have not taken it that way, garbage. Its idiotic to argue over and for anyone to actually care about. If there was a single grownup out of the three of us, this would have been over long ago, instead it was little jabs, and insults, and snide comments embedded into every message we sent to each other, this includes all of us, no one is blame free here. If you really think you are then you are as cluessless as you believe me to be. At any point one of us could have actually listened, been understanding, and accepting of the other persons view, rather than just stating your wrong and here's why type replies that everyone seemed to enjoy typing. We would have been better off in the long wrong. In the end i think we all can just agree to disagree on this one. I'm threw with this thread as well.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:02:47 +0000, Gunner999 wrote: If you really think you are then you are as cluessless as you believe me to be. Wow. Paul Adare MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager http://www.identit.ca Error: Something only humans can commit.